Mr. X the Unit Director for a large non profit Health Clinic in New York. Is being relieved his duties with pay for an unspecified period pending investigation. This is because the Director of Human Resources when recruiting him failed to conduct neglected taking the new employee’s finger prints which are used for checking criminal backgrounds of hired individual as stated in the law. The director of human Resources has however made an effort to correct the mistake by looking at the credibility of Mr. X for the position and has found that he rightfully deserved reflected by his well advanced education background.
Other than this, twenty years ago he was sentenced for murder. The Mr. X is therefore suing the agency on grounds that he was truthful in his application; he had received a letter of appointment by the HR director appointing him to the position and was never informed of the finger printing process. As the lawyer for Mr. X, without doubt, the agency is to blame for their actions and the way they have handled the issue is improper. They have shifted their fault on an innocent individual who as truthful as he was provided with them with the information when they requested for it.
Moreover, they have not given him a concrete reason as to why he is no longer fit for the position. The decision to relieving him of his duties is therefore unjust and without merit. Moreover, it goes against the laws of equal employment opportunities for all persons. This action is discriminatory because the agency is not giving him a chance to offer his expertise because he was previously charged for the offense of murder. “Very many people are being released from prisons and they too need to live and make proper income like the rest of other citizens (Conley, 1991).
” If all employees decide that they will not employ these reformed people, they will just be increasing the number of crime in society. This obviously will be against the fundamental laws of the judicial system of equality and justice for all persons. Mr. X is a trustworthy individual one of the most basic virtues that are needed in organizations. He was more than willing to reveal his past experiences because he knows that lying only makes the situation complicated. A person with a baccalaureate and masters degree is definitely an educated man who knows what is ethical or not.
Moreover, he obviously learnt a lot when he was in prison. The problem therefore was not with him but with the HR director who obviously neglected his duties (Western, 2006). If he could have addressed the issue then, then both parties would have known where the agency stands on the issues. To further the negligence issue on the part of this senior person at the agency, upon reading his profile, especially for a director position, they should have been triggered at once to know that the New York State policy requires them to take finger prints.
If they did not have doubts then if they were aware of the incident, then they do not have to start worrying now just because they have been caught on the wrong side of the law. Moreover, if they had issues with him six months ago, they should have addressed the issue with him then. But it seems that Mr. X is an excellent worker because the agency up to this point; which is past the probation period, they have not had any issues that have risen doubt.